set_section_properties

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that 0/empty values leave properties unchanged, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explain prerequisites (e.g., need for document_handle), effects on other sections, or success/failure behavior. The behavioral coverage is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one sentence plus a concise note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Modify section properties'). Every word earns its place with no fluff. Excellent conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and a large sibling set, the description is too brief. It does not explain the role of para_id and document_handle, valid values for orientation, or whether it modifies the current or a specific section. The output schema may cover return values, but behavioral and parameter completeness is low.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by grouping parameters into categories (page size, orientation, margins) and clarifying that zero/empty means unchanged. This helps but does not fully document all 9 parameters individually (e.g., para_id, document_handle are unexplained). The description adds moderate value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool 'Modify section properties' and lists examples (page size, orientation, margins). This provides a clear verb (modify) and resource (section properties), distinguishing it from sibling tools that modify single properties. However, it could be more comprehensive by explicitly listing all property categories.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like set_page_size or set_page_orientation. The note '0/empty = unchanged' implies partial updates but doesn't help the agent decide between this and single-property tools. Usage context is missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.